Talk:Media manipulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Media  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

POV[edit]

"Example: If many countries are opposed to our actions, but one of them (say, France) is obviously acting out of self-interest, mention mostly France. As with most persuasion methods, it can easily be applied in reverse, in this case, attempting to discredit George W. Bush in order to discredit the entire coalition against Iraq."

The editor probably didn't intend it to be, but the combo of the casual "(say, France)" with the "obviously acting out of self-interest" just smacks of POV to me. I think a better edit would be something like "but if one of them is obviously acting out of self-interest, mention mostly that country". It's def. still not perfect, but at least it's not quite so unnecessairly politically charged. --Zagsa 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The POV in this article is lacking, many of the examples given are just opinions and hypothetical. An international perspective is needed and perhaps this page needs to be watched because just glancing at the content within the article I noticed political refrences and personal opinions someone even attributed media manipulation to being the sole providence of the Republican Party and the War on Terror really being about the United States securing oil and opium resources for themselves. People with their own political opinions need to support their claims with citations and evidence, however by the very nature of the topic of media manipulatiuon examples and discussions of it tend to be biased toward personal beliefs. Jackknight28 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This article absolutely belongs here under its current term "Media Manipulation". This term is both appropriate and descriptive. No external "support" is necessary for a term which is obvious to anyone who reads it and immediately understands its meaning. This term differs from "Propaganda" in that the latter term has been negatively associated with specific government regimes in the past 70 years of media coverage. Regardless, the special interest(s) that manipulate the media to impose their views of the world via either censorship, unbalanced reporting, undermining of the majority viewpoint, etc. need to be held accountable for their fraud, which is essentially what media manipulation is. It could as easily be termed "Media Fraud". Kean Andreas (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC) user Kean Andreas

FOX News[edit]

Should there be a section here on case studies? FOX News would be perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide (talkcontribs) 06:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there should. Seriously trying to figure out how this can be added, for example: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/05/survey-no-news-better-fox-news/52709/

Steve Rapaport (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Compliance professional be merged into Media manipulation. I think that the content in the compliance professional article can easily be explained in the context of media manipulation, and the media manipulation article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of compliance professional will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. All of the links within compliance professional for types of compliance professionals are redirects to the corresponding type of media manipulation.

I am prepared to perform the merger now if consensus favours the proposal. --03:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Andrewaskew (talk)

This merger has been done. However, there is another merger proposal below. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2[edit]

  • Support Suggest both (Compliance professional & Media manipulation) be merged into Propaganda model or other suitable, intellectually credible. The Herman-Chomsky orientation of the target seems narrow but there's no denying their association with that name. Didn't look hard for another target but there's something wrong with this name, it's down wiki tone if you will, as it is now stands alone with Compliance professional suggesting a new broader scope for the merge result. Maybe the target should take the name of this article (same as merge Propaganda model into this one). 72.228.189.184 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Adjusted my entry to format of users below, adjusted theirs to list. There's also Media Bias, again not exhaustively looked but that occurred and seems to be most developed ATM. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Media manipulation and compliance professional seem to be about PR manipulation of the media, the Herman-Chomsky model is about the inherent conflict of interest within the media. It would be merging unrelated noteworthy articles. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per "Media manipulation cannot be entirely explained in the context of the Propaganda model".--Sum (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"10 Strategies of media manipulation and disinformation, (Noam Chomsky)."[edit]

I think this is fake. I think it was not written by Noam Chomsky and it's a hoax. Can someone verify? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The French version is (claimed to be) copyrighted by another person: http://www.syti.net/Manipulations.html -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Text added in November 2012 by anonymous IP. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Well spotted, but it is not literally a hoax. The anonymous IP has misinterpreted the authorship of the source. It is an interpretation of Chomsky by the journalist wmar:Eduardo Aliverti. Whether it is an accurate interpretation, I think, should be left to the reader. I have altered the link to reflect this authorship. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Rhetoric and opinion are not media manipulation[edit]

This article is a bit of a mess. Currently a lot of it covers logical fallacies, and offers real and hypothetical examples - but those are examples of rhetoric and opinion, not media manipulation. A U.S. government official saying something to the effect that the Europeans are always wrong, as a current example has it, is really just one person expressing his opinion. On the other hand, if that official were to, say, create a fake organization called "Americans Against European Involvement" that held press conferences to try to increase the perception that there was widespread agreement with his opinion, that would be an undeniable case of media manipulation. So I think a lot of the examples here need to be changed or removed, and there should be more of a focus on bona fide media tricks. Similarly, an image shown in the article of a World War II propaganda poster urging soldiers not to reveal military secrets doesn't seem like media manipulation either - just a government expressing its opinion in a straightforward way. Aren't there better examples to use for all of this? Korny O'Near (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Rhetoric and rhetorical devices are some of our best examples of media manipulation.
This page currently covers two interelated topics, manipulation of media, and manipulation by media. You seem to want us to entirely focus on the former. But Wikipedia does not decide what the term means, we have to follow the definitions from our sources. You could, if you felt so inclined, argue for a division of the current page into 2 pages along these lines. IMHO, the division is not clear enough, and the two pages would become confused, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
As to your specific questions of examples, both the politician's rhetoric and theoretical false flag organisation are examples "of" and "by." There are other examples that could be brought into this page, such as the pages within Category:Propaganda by topic. At present this page has a largely theoretical emphasis, if you want more timely examples then they could be introduced. Be careful though, the related page Propaganda is a former featured article which has suffered from too many examples.
If you wish to improve this page, I am happy to support and assist your efforts, let's make sure we know what we're working towards. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, the specific example I was talking about before (might as well focus on one, since most of the examples tend to fall into the same category) was a U.S. State Department official telling a reporter, "You want to know what I really think of the Europeans? I think they have been wrong on just about every major international issue for the past 20 years." In what way does that constitute manipulation, as opposed to just one person expressing an opinion? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This is an example of a public figure using rhetoric to reframe the debate and distract the public from the issue at hand. By transforming the question from the initial point (which we are not given, this is a hypothetical example) into a nationalistic anti-European answer they are manipulating the populous and the media. It is not simply an opinion, but also an effective device. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That's assuming rather a lot about the speaker, isn't it? It seems like you're assuming that he's not only lying about his opinion, but that he's doing so deliberately in order to sway public sentiment. Couldn't it be that he's simply stating an opinion? (By the way, unlike most of the examples, that one's not hypothetical - it's a real quote.) Korny O'Near (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, it is not necessary to assume anything about the speaker or their motives. Alot of the talk that fills up public debate is somewhat rhetorical, and serves to distract or reframe discussion. This is not to assume that any public figure is being underhanded or disingenuous (some of them probably are, but that is not the issue at hand). The speaker in question may well be expressing their honest opinion, and they may well believe that opinion is relevant. The point here is that this kind of statement accomplishes a manipulative end, it changes media and public in a way that raw information does not. It is a type of transfer. It may create an associative mental short-hand in the listener, whether or not this is intended. This type of linguistic and psychological device what our sources and this page are about. (Yes, I am aware that this is a real example with a real quote. But it is being treated in a theoretical fashion by the page. The details here are less important than what they illustrate.) Andrewaskew (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems rather broad - by that standard, is there a single example of an opinion being stated in a newspaper, TV show, etc. that could not be counted as an example of media manipulation? Even a statement like "I like carrots" could create "transfer", mental short-hand and all of that, no? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I fail to see how "I like carrots" could be construed as an example of transfer. Can you explain?
Even if we concede that all media is manipulation (which, at present, I am not willing to do, but for arguments sake), then is it not a sliding scale? Are there not pieces of communication which are better examples of media manipulation, which are more manipulative than others? Perhaps there is a range of things close to centre of pure manipulation which we might talk about on this page? Andrewaskew (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an expert on "transfer" - and it may suffer from the same inexactness of definition as "media manipulation" - but it seems to me that both statements ("I like carrots", "I think Europeans are usually wrong about international issues"), are statements of opinion, that could be used to try to sway other people's opinions. Which, reading the article on transfer, seems to be all that transfer is, at heart. Anyway, this is a very important question - is all media a form of manipulation? If so, then the article should probably state that, and not spend so much time listing various logical fallacies. If not, then where do you draw the line? Why are some statements manipulation and others not? To me, it seems like that line of thinking leads to the conclusion that a statement of opinion, by itself, can never be a form of media manipulation. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of issues here.
  1. The raw statement "I like carrots" is not an example of transfer as there is no association of ideas. An advertisment in which a celebrity extols the virtues of carrots or even the statement "Hitler liked carrots" would be examples of transfer as we are being lead to associate carrots with something else. "I think Europeans are usually wrong about international issues" is a different sort of transfer as we are being asked to associate the particular point in question with a possible stereotype of Europeans, and with issues of national pride.
  2. The inexactitude of a definition is not necessarily the same as the unclarity of its constituent members. The definition itself may be very clear, but there may be very difficult cases to determine.
  3. I agree that whether all media is manipulation is a very important question. However, I disagree that it is a question we should answer here. Various sources have conflicting and quite complicated opinions. It is our role in Wikipedia not to answer the question, but to encyclopædically outline the debate. Till the question is answered outside of Wikipedia, it cannot be answered inside Wikipedia. (Note that this is not true in every case, sometimes the argument has been well and truly settled. So Wikipedia should reflect that consensus.)
  4. In my personal opinion, whether a statement constitutes an "opinion" is not relevant to whether it is a "manipulation." (And to reference an old debate, is not every statement in some sense an opinion?) The question is to whether the statement, and especially the form of the statement, uses the techniques of manipulation. Which is why the page spends so long on technique, it is the (deliberate or non-deliberate) use of technique which defines manipulation. (Which is not to say that all media techniques are manipulation techniques.) To say that "a statement of opinion... can never be a form of media manipulation" is somewhat begging the question.
I think that the point we are heading towards is that our lead section needs a clearer definition. Perhaps we need to return to our sources for something succinct. Andrewaskew (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You're right that the most important thing is what outside sources have to say about media manipulation, and I probably should have started with that. Unfortunately, the set of sources directly talking about media manipulation seems rather limited, both within this article and in general. There are a lot of dead links, so the only two working direct references in the page seem to be pages written by Anup Shah and Michael Parenti. The former, though he writes at an official-sounding website (globalissues.org), seems to really just be one person writing on the internet, and should probably be removed from the article, even though what he's saying sounds reasonable, and even though it would bring down the number of direct sources to one for now.
As to a good definition of media manipulation, it seems to me, based both on reading those outside references and thinking about it more, that it should be something like using a knowledge of how the media (i.e. press), and human psychology, work, to try to influence opinion. So I was probably wrong before to say that expressions of opinion can never be manipulation. To take an extreme example, if a politician knows that a certain reporter believes in Zeus, and the politician makes sure to start every sentence in an interview with "By the power of Zeus...", that would seem to be a case of (at least attempted) media manipulation. But I think the key is intent - an intent to game the system in some way. That's why I think most of the examples in the article are not good: even when the person is talking about some incendiary topic, like hatred of Turks, Europeans, Communists or what have you, there's no indication that there's some attempt at manipulation there, as opposed to just a person expressing their opinion. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think that discussing intentionality is problematic, particularly if we want to use more concrete examples or if people want to link here from other pages. It is very difficult to prove "an intent to game the system," and in biographic cases it is likely to be contentious and possibly even libelous. I think it is far less problematic to discuss use of techniques or technique-like formulations. That is, we can discuss the manner or form of communication, we have no insight into the reasoning of the communicator.

Here are a few definitions chosen at random from the interwebs:

Media manipulation refers to the act of creating an image or argument that favors their particular interests. It includes the use of logical fallacies and propaganda techniques, suppression of information or points of view by pushing them out, by making other people or groups of people to stop listening to certain arguments, or by simply deviating attention elsewhere. Further, media manipulation involves utilizing staff news specialists, self-serving handouts, programmed appearances, and positive and negative reinforcement in dealing with reporters and news media. It is often used as a powerful tool to manipulate masses through modern technologies.

US Legal.com

The media is manipulated in all manners, for example through professional public relations (PR), and covert and overt government propaganda which disseminates propaganda as news. What are often deemed as credible news sources can often knowingly or unknowingly be pushing political agendas and propaganda.

Global Issues by Anup Shah

Every day we are bombarded by advertisements, logos, and slogans. They tell us what to buy, who should lead us, and anything else that advertisers wish to inform us of. We have become so accustomed to this iconry that we consciously pay it little mind, however, by doing this these ideas and slogans go subconsciously into out mind subliminally. This backed by the news media's careful screening and processing of information before it is presented to the public leads to a society which is told what to eat, drink, buy, wear, and most importantly, what to think. We will look at what advertising is saying, but first we must examine how it's saying it.

In order for any person to perform an action that they would not normally do of their own accord, they must first be convinced that it is what is best, and they must choose to do it themselves rather than be forced or obviously coerced into doing so. Subliminal messaging is what the media uses to put a thought into the mind of the viewer. A subliminal is any message which is conveyed to a person without them realizing it. Certain techniques used for the manipulation of video and multimedia convey more meaning than what is readily seen.

eserver.org by Zachary Jones

If you don’t know, you should. Because media manipulation currently shapes everything you read, hear and watch online. Everything.

In the old days, we only had a few threats to fear when it came to media manipulation: the government propagandist and the hustling publicist. They were serious threats, but vigilance worked as a clear and simple defense. They were the exceptions rather than the rule—they exploited the fact that the media was trusted and reliable. Today, with our blog and web driven media cycle, nothing can escape exaggeration, distortion, fabrication and simplification.

Forbes by Ryan Holiday

Of these, they vary in the degree to which they are outright conspiracy theory. The 3rd can I think be discarded on those grounds. The 4th is largely pushing his book, Trust Me, I'm Lying, but fails to give a nice definition of what he is talking about. The 1st I think is the most official and straightforward, but "an image or argument that favors... particular interests" does make it sound like we're back at all media is manipulation.

I'm not certain, but I favour the first one. Let me know what you think. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is good research. That first definition looks the best of the bunch. (The second one, as I noted, is from a totally non-notable source, and should be ignored, and I think the current references to it in the article should be removed.) I think the core of our disagreement here is the issue of intent - whether it's required or not. Requiring intent may be "problematic", and may make our lives as editors harder, but if it's part of the definition, then that's how it should be. It's like the difference between murder and manslaughter - the former requires intent, and so you have to be more careful when talking about it, but nonetheless that's part of the definition. In the case of that first definition, I wish it were a little better-written (as you noted, that first sentence is awfully broad; it doesn't even mention media), but I think the indication of intent is clear - there's a focus on attempting to control the message on all fronts. I don't think a single quote given to a newspaper - no matter how logically fallacious - rises to the level of media manipulation by that definition. (Though even if you consider it, say, the mildest form of media manipulation, does it make sense that 90% of the examples given in this article are of that extremely mild form?) Korny O'Near (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
(Apologies for the delay. Busy with extra-Wikipedian activities.) You're right, I suppose, that the problems created by a definition don't affect whether it is the correct definition. Your analogy to manslaughter makes alot of sense.
However, I don't read a necessity for intentionality from that first definition. I feel like this definition refers to both intentional and uintentional acts. Which is part of the problem with broad definitions, they tend to reflect the mental biases of the reader. I'm not sure how we sort that out.
I think that a single statement, artfully created, and given to a journalist is the epitome of effective media manipulation. While broad and heavy handed manipulation (such as censorship or hoaxes) are important, perhaps more important is the everyday subtle level of manipulation strived for by politicians and political interests. This is the reason for the emphasis of the page as it stands on rhetoric, it is the arguable role (and different journalists and media manipulation theorists disagree as to the level) of this kind of manipulation in everday media communication. It may be mild, but it is arguably pervasive and effective.
I would agree that we could certainly expand discussion of this broader media manipulation with more examples of censorship and so on. But I disagree with the idea that the current examples ought to be trimmed. --Andrewaskew (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that some statements can be media manipulation (see my "Zeus" example before), but are all statements a type of manipulation? If not, what's the dividing line? Again, I think it's the issue of intent - and you seem to agree with me, when you talk about "artfully created" statements. But if that's not, what is it? The article currently makes a big deal about playing to fear, xenophobia and other negative emotions. Is that what defines it? If an engineering expert is quoted in a newspaper as saying something like, "If the bridge downtown isn't reinforced in the next five years, it could collapse", that's a statement that's likely to arouse people's fears. Is it a form of media manipulation? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Once again. I think we are close, but disagree on a few key points. I would agree that intent to manipulate is important, that it provides the key examples. But I don't think it's the dividing line, if we can draw a line. (The more we talk, the closer I am to concluding that there is no line, and we have to say that "all media is manipulation." I really didn't want to draw that conclusion, but I suppose dialogue is a key rhetorical education tool.) For me the line is manipulation, does it have an effect beyond the raw conveying of information, is there some type of unconscious effect conveyed?
So in order of manipulativeness:
  1. "If the bridge downtown isn't reinforced in the next five years, it could collapse."
  2. "If the bridge downtown isn't reinforced in the next five years, it will collapse."
  3. "If the bridge downtown isn't reinforced in the next five years, people will die."
  4. "If we don't fix the bridge now, people will die."
These statements convey more or less the same information, but each is a little more alarmist and manipulative. Now it may be that our theoretical engineering expert is not setting out to manipulate, but there is a manipulative effect from the way the information is conveyed.
To use Wikimedia (wikt:manipulate), media manipulation is a use of media (probably mass media) which influences, directs, or tampers with people. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. So let me get this straight: all those statements about the bridge are manipulative, even if they're true? If the bridge collapses the day after any of those statements was made, was it still manipulative? (Tied in with that, if all media is manipulation, shouldn't this article just be a redirect to media (communication)?) Korny O'Near (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Thanks for your response too. The truth or falsity of a statement is not directly relevant to its manipulativeness. (Although an untrue statemant is probably more likely manipulative, simply because it implies another motive for the communication.) They are largely independent variables with some degree of inverse correlation.

We can make true manipulative statements, for instance the facts and presentation of tabloid journalism will oftentimes be true (not always, but at least some of the time) but will give a certain impression or create an emotional response which would not arise from a more balanced perpective.

We can make false non-manipulative statements, for instance a good portion of fiction is designed simply to entertain, with no manipulation involved. (Unless we consider the emotions involved a type of manipulation, but these seem to be unfocused enjoyment.)

No, I wouldn't support a merge of this page into media (communication), any more than I would support a merge of every single page into concept (which would be a major case of disrupting to make a point, I know). While you can argue that they are on the same topic, the differences matter, we may be discussing something that is true of all media (I'm still not sure) but we are focusing on a particular aspect, manipulation. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay - so we've established that you think that any statement, made via the media, that's designed to create some change is a form of manipulation. That's a valid opinion (especially given the scarcity of notable definitions of this topic), and interestingly, it's the exact opposite of my original opinion, that no statement is a form of manipulation, but actually, the two opinions, though they're opposites, aren't all that far apart: in neither case do the current structure, or examples, make sense. The current examples are heavily focused on nationalism, hatred and fear. But couldn't a statement like "Everyone should exercise more" work just as well? Right now, the article gives the sense that media manipulation is based around negative emotions, but according to you it's just based around trying to change opinion. More broadly, if just about any statement of opinion will do, do we need to list examples at all? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's settle our overview before we make major changes to rest of the page. You make a good point though, our positions are both very close and opposite. I like to think it provides a good balance.
That's not exactly my position. I would say that any "image or argument"[1], made via the media, which creates a change in people is a form of media manipulation, but some changes are more manipulative than others. The best examples of media manipulation are "logical fallacies and propaganda techniques, suppression of information or points of view by pushing them out,[...] making other people or groups of people[...] stop listening to certain arguments, or[...] simply [diverting] attention elsewhere"[1], which are the examples the page currently focuses on. If I can be granted an encyclopedic point of view for a minute, I think a reader searching media manipulation is more likely to be looking for examples along these lines.
I would agree that the page could do with more positive examples of manipulation. (Both positive emotions, and positive manipulation. I might say "persuasion.") Maybe we could draw more examples from activism, marketing, and advertising? But I still think that the best examples of manipulation are the rhetoric, propaganda, and censorship we have now. --Andrewaskew (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Okay, that definition sounds fine to me: all opinion stated through the media is technically media manipulation, but the most manipulative statements involve logical fallacies, propaganda techniques, suppression and diversion. However, I don't agree that the current examples are good representations of that. Let me go back to the initial example I brought up, with a government official saying that Europeans tend to be wrong about foreign policy. Yes, you could argue that this is a form of "transfer", etc. But surely there could be some more clear-cut example of manipulation, say, one that's an official statement as opposed to an off-the-cuff remark? (And hypothetical examples are fine - they're probably better than real examples, in that they don't muddle the issues.) Conversely, there are examples like "Labelling those with any sort of right-wing views as "fascists", or those with left-wing views as "commies", etc.", that I also disagree with - that's a clear form of diversion or what have you, but on the other hand I don't think this kind of statement is done via the media; unless you count blog comments and the like as "media". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
A few things.
I am looking to revive WikiProject Media, and am on the lookout for interested editors.
I would personally describe blog posts as media, but that's a whole new media-participatory culture debate that we're not going to settle here.
Something like this?

Media manipulation is the creation an image or argument that causes a change in people.[1] The key examples are the use of logical fallacies and propaganda techniques, and often involve the suppression of information or points of view by crowding them out, by inducing other people or groups of people to stop listening to certain arguments, or by simply diverting attention elsewhere. But it includes more benign persuasion. In Propaganda: The...

--Andrewaskew (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

References

I would say that first sentence is somewhat awkward (it should at least mention the media), but in any case, my issue was never really with the introduction; it was with the rest of the article, especially with the examples given. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
For my part, I feel like the status of the examples arises out of definitional questions. But I can see what you mean.
I would agree that we should move away from real and concrete examples. Ultimately, an example on an abstract page like this is better the less details we have to confuse the matter. So I suppose we need to compose new examples here, or do you want to be bold then discuss? Andrewaskew (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're right that a definition is important for everything else. As for the examples - thinking about it now, I'm not sure if examples of any kind are really that helpful here. The examples currently in the article are very similar to the kind that can be found in many of the logical fallacy pages - and examples there make sense because they illustrate some technical aspect of their subject. For a very general article like this, specific hypothetical examples don't seem like they would really provide a benefit, and might just cause more confusion. For instance, I think we would both agree that a biased news story, that only presented one side of some issue, would be an example of media manipulation. Would it really be helpful to give a real or hypothetical example of such a thing? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I think examples do two things. They provide evidence, and they illustrate the point. We don't need any evidentary examples, but we may need some illustrative. I suppose it comes down to whether the example increases the clarity of the point being made. If a typical reader can understand the point without an example, then they are unecessary. I suppose this is becoming a stylistic question in regards to the Techniques, and to some extent the Contexts. Would you say they need to be rewritten? Andrewaskew (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do think, looking it over again, that the "Techniques" section needs to be reworked, and maybe reduced significantly, and maybe even removed altogether. Right now the section seems like a combination of original research and overly-specific stuff that belongs better in articles about logical fallacies. If any piece of media designed to influence people counts as media manipulation (and I don't necessarily disagree with that), then listing things like "distraction by regression" seems awfully specific. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I like that, "any piece of media designed to influence people." It's succinct, I wonder if we can use that as our definition.

I think there are three problems with the techniques section.
  1. It could do with a rewrite.
  2. It is very focused on certain types of manipulation, and ignores others entirely. (Compare the container Category:Media manipulation techniques.)
  3. Does it belong in the article at all?
I wonder if maybe this whole section would be better off excised to its own article, media manipulation techniques. Not for reasons of length, but to give this article a tighter focus. Then we could trim, expand, and reorder that, without worrying if we were providing too much irrelevant detail.
What do you think? --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how splitting off content into another article would solve anything - the difficult work would then just move over to the other article. Given that we agree that this section could use some work: care to take a stab at rewriting it, since you objected to my rewrites? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
(Apologies for the delay. Busy with extra-Wikipedian activities.) I'll have a stab at it. Thanks. Andrewaskew (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

pictures[edit]

None of the three pictures in the article were about the mass media, which is the main focus of the article. I'm sure there are better pictures available. BayShrimp (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of those pictures. The article was looking bare, so I added in some replacements that are hopefully more apropos. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Your offerings do add some interest to the article. BayShrimp (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I concur, they are well chosen pictures. I am the editor who added the initial 3, but I think I prefer your choices. Andrewaskew (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

positive examples[edit]

If we are looking for positive manipulation the anti-smoking campaign would be a good example. BayShrimp (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A good suggestion. In fact PSAs in general provide fertile ground for positive manipulative efforts. Something like this, for instance:
[[File:Dumb Ways to Die.png|thumb|300px|center|A screenshot from Dumb Ways to Die.]]
--Andrewaskew (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)